[cabf_validation] [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal

[kirk_hall at trendmicro.com]

You lost me on that one.  Sec. 7 of the IPR is below.  Isn’t it necessary first to review the BRs and EVGLs “After a Guideline is Adopted” – Sec. 7.2 - to see if there is an “Essential Claim”, and the once one is found, decide what to do?  We can do the same process when we have a “Draft Guideline” ready to go.  But the first step is identifying “Essential Claims.”


7. Exception Handling

7.1. PAG Formation

In the event a patent has been disclosed that may contain an Essential Claim, but such Essential Claim is not available under CAB Forum RF Licensing, a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be launched to resolve the conflict. The PAG is an ad-hoc group constituted specifically in relation to the Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline containing the conflict. A PAG may also be formed without such a disclosure if a PAG could help avoid anticipated patent problems.

7.2. PAG Formation After a Guideline Is Adopted
A PAG may also be convened in the event Essential Claims are discovered after a Guideline is issued. In this case the PAG will be open to any interested Member, though the PAG may choose to meet without the holder of the Essential Claims in question.

7.3. PAG Procedures

7.4.1. PAG Formation Timing

The PAG will be convened by a Chair who shall be elected by the PAG and who must not be affiliated with the company owning the Essential Claim that is the subject of the PAG, The timing for convening the PAG is at the discretion of the Chair. In some cases, convening a PAG before a specific patent disclosure is made may be useful. In other cases, it may be that the PAG can better resolve the licensing problems when the specification is at the Review Period level.

7.5.1. Possible PAG Conclusions

After appropriate consultation, the PAG may conclude:

a. The initial concern has been resolved, enabling the work on the Guideline to continue.

b. The CAB Forum should be instructed to consider designing around the identified claims.

c. The PAG should seek further information and evaluation, including and not limited to evaluation of the patents in question or the terms under which CAB Forum RF licensing requirements may be met.

d. The project relating to the Draft Guideline in question should be terminated.

e. The Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline should be rescinded.

f. Alternative licensing terms should be considered.


From: Jeremy Rowley [mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 12:52 PM
To: Kirk Hall (RD-US); Ryan Sleevi
Cc: pag at cabforum.org; validation at cabforum.org
Subject: RE: [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal

I don’t think the documents are the ones that need to be reviewed. It’s the filed exceptions to the IPR that need to be reviewed.

From: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> [mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 1:51 PM
To: Jeremy Rowley; Ryan Sleevi
Cc: pag at cabforum.org<mailto:pag at cabforum.org>; validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: RE: [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal

Yes, that was my understanding, and I think that’s what the IP policy says.  We have a lot of current work product – the BRs and EVGL as a whole – that have never been examined by a PAG, so that seems to be an appropriate starting point.

From: Jeremy Rowley [mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 12:47 PM
To: Ryan Sleevi; Kirk Hall (RD-US)
Cc: pag at cabforum.org<mailto:pag at cabforum.org>; validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: RE: [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal

Isn’t the PAG convening primarily to review the disclosed patents and make a recommendation on current work product based on the disclosures?

From: pag-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:pag-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:pag-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 1:31 PM
To: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>
Cc: pag at cabforum.org<mailto:pag at cabforum.org>; validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal



On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:23 PM, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> <kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>> wrote:

Thanks for the explanation, Gerv.  I think it will be some weeks before a revised draft ballot modifying the domain validation methods under BR 3.2.2.4 (formerly BR 11.1.1) will be ready for review by the PAG.  The VWG's plan is to continue working on a draft ballot until we think it's in good shape, then sent it to the public list and full Forum for discussion and suggestions, that bring it back to the VWG for any final editing.  At that point, there will be an actual proposed ballot on new validation methods that can come back to the full Forum and to public list for final discussion and adoption.



The best time for the PAG to look at a finished ballot, therefore, is at the end, after the review by the VWG and Forum has been completed, and any final edits have been made.
Respectfully, but rather clearly, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. This continues to rest on the assumption that the role of the PAG is to examine specific claims and specific methods. If this were true, you might have a point - although I think it's questionable as to whether it's more beneficial or not to begin the review as early as possible, considering review takes time.

However, to the extent that the PAG is not exclusively dealing with these issues, as stated repeatedly (and requested in the original formation of the PAG, and consistent with Section 7.1 of the IPR), there is no reason to refrain. Indeed, it would be significantly more useful if the PAG can work to provide guidance on the applicability and expectations of the IPR policy to the work going on in 3.2.2.4, so that we don't have to see multiple "final" ballots put together. That would be of a far greater use to the Forum at large (not needing to review multiple proposals), and offer far more iterative feedback to the VWG.


In the meantime -- to my knowledge, the PAG has never reviewed the six EXISTING domain validation methods of CURRENT BR 3.2.2.4.  Because these six methods will all be included in the new ballot (plus some additional validation methods that we are adding), it might be a useful project for the PAG right now to review the CURRENT BR 3.2.2.4 domain validation methods against all disclosed patent claims.  Whatever the result is, it will be useful later when the revised ballot is ready for PAG review.  Does that make sense to you?
Again, this was discussed at length on the call.

I think it might be far more useful to avoid rehashing things already discussed if, as suggested earlier, you wait for the opportunity to review the minutes, to see that such suggestions were already made and discussed. While the list is beneficial (in that it goes to all members, especially with as many lists CC'd here), the minutes go to the list and do that just as well, and perhaps more succinctly than ongoing threads rehashing things.

Hopefully you will realize, as I've tried to echo repeatedly, that a key request for the formation of the PAG was NOT to review the existing domain validation methods, since it is a necessary FIRST step to ensure there is a common understanding and agreement about the IPR policy and how it plays out. This was discussed as one of the first and necessary activities of the PAG, and why I've repeatedly suggested that waiting for the minutes may provide clarity before offering suggestions about what is and isn't the scope of the PAG or the priorities - by hopefully ensuring an understanding of the issues being looked at.



TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE

The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential

and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection.

If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or

disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or

telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.




<table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential 
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or 
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
</pre></td></tr></table>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20150729/dbb829d9/attachment-0001.html